“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complaint, v.GEORGETOWN IRONWORKS INC.,Respondent. OSHRC Docket No. 92-0080_DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER _The Complainant filed a Motion to Remand Case for Reconsideration inLight of New Information on June 8, 1992. That Motion, which Complainantrepresents is filed on behalf of both parties, asserts that theRespondent has demonstrated, to the Complainant’s satisfaction, that ithad no employees or role at the cited construction worksite. Based onthat demonstration, the Complainant has informed the Commission that itseeks to withdraw the citation upon which its complaint is based.On May 22, 1992, Chief Administrative Law Judge Irving Sommer issued anOrder Dismissing the Respondent’s Notice of Contest. That Order,affirming the Secretary’s citation and proposed penalties in ailrespects, was docketed with the Commission on May 28, 1992 JudgeSommer’s Order was based on the Respondent’s failure to answer anearlier Order to Show Cause why the Respondent’s Notice of Contestshould not be dismissed.Under the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission will interpretthe Complainant’s Motion of June 8, 1992 as a Petition for DiscretionaryReview and a Motion to Withdraw Citation. Based on our review of therecord in this matter, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. ? 661(j) and CommissionRule 92(a), 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.92(a), the aforementioned Order DismissingNotice of Contest is directed for review. Further, finding that underCommission Rule 102, 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.102, the Complainant may withdrawthe citation at any stage of a proceeding, pursuant to that rule, theComplainant’s Motion to Withdraw Citation is granted.Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., ChairmanDonald G. Wiseman, CommissionerVelma Montoya, CommissionerDated: June 18, 1992————————————————————————SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v.GEORGETOWN IRONWORKS,INC.Respondent,Docket NO.92-0080 *_ORDER_ *On March 24, 1992, the undersigned issued an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to theRespondent as to why his Notice of Contest should not be dismissed forfailure to file an answer to the complaint as required by the CommissionRules of Procedure. The Respondent failed to reply to the ORDER. Hisactions demonstrate either that he has abandoned the case or treats theRules of Procedure of the Commission with disdain. This cannot becountenanced as it seriously impedes the administration of justice.Accordingly, the Notice of Contest filed by the Respondent is dismissed.The Secretary’s citation(s) and proposed penalties are AFFIRMED in allrespects.IRVING SOMMERJudgeDATED: MAY 22,1992Washington, D.C.SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complaint,v.Georgetown Ironworks, Inc.,Respondent.DOCKET NO. 92-0080REGION 1MOTION TO REMAND CASE FOR RECONSIDERATIONIN LIGHT OF NEW INFORMATIONOn behalf of both parties, Complainant hereby moves the ReviewCommission to remand this case to the Administrative Law Judge forreconsideration. Because Respondent has demonstrated that it had noemployees or role at the cited construction worksite, Complainant seeksto withdraw the Complaint herein and the citation on which it is based. Note that another employer at the cited construction worksite hasaccepted responsibility for the same citation items arising out ofidentical violations; those citation items were not contested and havebecome a final order under the OSH Act.While Complainant does not condone this _pro_ _se_ Respondent’scontinued failure to file an Answer to the Complaint, the purposes ofthe OSH Act would be ill served by entry of a final order against thewrong employer.Dated______________ Marshall J. BregerSolicitor of Labor Albert H. RossRegional Solicitor Constance B. FranklinAttorneyU.S. Department of LaborAttonreys for Complainant”